Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: TYLER SHANNARA S. (Anonymous). Jewish Child Care Association, respondent; Maria S. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of mental illness, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated December 2, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, terminated her parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Jewish Child Care Association of New York and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4] [c]; Matter of Dederia S.C., 26 A.D.3d 375, 809 N.Y.S.2d 189; Matter of Karyn Katrina D., 19 A.D.3d 592, 592-593, 797 N.Y.S.2d 536; Matter of Erica D., 294 A.D.2d 435, 436, 742 N.Y.S.2d 112). After interviewing the mother and reviewing her medical records, a psychologist testified that the mother suffers from “schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type” and “personality disorder, not otherwise specified.” The psychologist opined that due to the nature of the illness, the mother's lack of insight about her illness, and her inability to act in accordance with her child's needs due to her illness, the child, if returned to the mother, would be at risk of being neglected in the present and in the foreseeable future. This evidence supported the Family Court's findings (see Matter of Karyn Katrina D., supra at 593, 797 N.Y.S.2d 536; Matter of Winston Lloyd D., 7 A.D.3d 706, 707, 777 N.Y.S.2d 175; Matter of Danielle C., 6 A.D.3d 530, 531, 774 N.Y.S.2d 431; Matter of Heather Rose R., 301 A.D.2d 530, 753 N.Y.S.2d 526).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 06, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)